Where did the British car industry go wrong?

[diy_fun_uk]

Here's another way to look at it. In decades gone by (and current day e.g. rail strikes) there were strikes in this country across various industries including cars. It can be argued in some cases these strikes directly or indirectly contributed to the demise of those industries (or their significant reduction in terms of output, contribution to GDP etc.) However, whilst countries such as Japan came to the fore, much of this was (and still is to this day) due to a work ethic/mentality and government legislation around things like strikes and unions that is significantly different to the UK.

I actually think it's quite concerning to see an increasing distain in the UK for unions and even strikes. If these things are eroded, don't be fooled by politicians that say workers will still enjoy a robust set of legislation concerning employment, coupled with decent wages.

Although strikes can be (very) inconvenient, and although UK workers in the main perhaps don't have the robot-like work mentality of those in countries like Japan, China, on balance I'd sooner have our approach to work and workplace protections, even if it means we're not as productive and don't generate as much money.

 

[Andydevon]

I distinctly remember my grandfather buying a new car. I must have been still in short trousers so around 1970 ish He wanted to by British being an ex service man RMP in India in the second world war so wanted to avoided anything jap. He could not as all British car builders were out on strike and supply was non existent so he bought a Datsun ( Nissan now for the youngsters) He thought it a clearly superior in technology and build quality of anything available from Longbridge etc at the time. Strikes did not do in the car industry but the lack of investment, failure to modernised working practices and not aiming to beat the rival producers all played a part.

 

[ajohn]

due to a work ethic/mentality

Not so sure I would entirely agree with that. At Lucas for instance in the late 60's there was a rumour that they were going to run the company down as people didn't deserve it. Like many larger companies it was parental. Job for life, social activities and a decent pension in the end. In practice the job for life wasn't that simple but pull your weight and very likely. It wasn't a strike ridden company but one strike was extended on purpose by over producing before one was due. Leyland in particular having negotiated a basic salary all year rather than lay offs when more car production was not needed clearly encouraged strikes at times. Pay round time in many larger industries resulted in strikes usually short ones. In some areas the unions would go in and simply negotiate one. They might pick some particular area to arrange a strike in as they knew the company wanted the work to be done. Saves having all out and paying them, just a few instead. More typical of technical areas. Rather different to production workers. A favourite more direct approach would be the people that maintained the equipment - once something broke production was reduced or stopped. The pay rise rise they got might also be reflected into other direct production workers. This is all rather different to the news at the time which often mention car production line workers said to be working for salaries that they never ever earned in practice. You may as well accept that there was an anti union campaign going on.

Another pertinent point was a rather odd BBC program where they went round asking what people would do with all of the leisure time they would have in the future. Automation results in less jobs - a lot lot less these days. It was coming. Counter that with a course I was sent on run by a high flying accountant that did project work for the main board. His view was that creating jobs for people is no loner a companies resposibility. It's some one else's. Their responsibility is to share holders. Also manufacture - no more special purpose machinery, flexible manufacture instead. Sometimes special purpose is the most efficient way. Then comes the usual, concentrate on high added value. Everyone everywhere wants those and companies make what they do make. Switching to something else is a bit of a strange idea. The field they are in offers the price margins it does so the only way of increasing profit is reducing costs. More bull stuff really.

Japan. Lost the war. Not much in the line if natural resources so what to do to grow. Manufacture. Japan put Japanese money into it and did for a long time. They had an interesting idea to increase automation and avoid people problems. They kept people using the old stuff alongside the new until they retired. No redundancies - carry on paying people till they found another job. This didn't last. To create more money start exporting The UK car market was a soft target and even drove on the same side as them. They sell all over the world now so an outfit such as Toyota start tiny and finish up being one of the biggest in the world. The Japanese banks were prepared to fund them. On the electronics side I have heard that a bank more or less owns one company in that field. Logistics entirely different said to be down to land prices and space. Parts storage kept to a minimum always arriving on time and used on time as well. Copied all over the world now. Less value sitting around waiting to be actually used.

Germany is similar but there is another factor as well. Buy German to help post war recovery. Many Germans will tell you all of their products are the best. A solid home market helps a lot. Some will not buy anything else unless they have no choice.

The typical British worker? There is a lot of truth in HRH's last political comment to the CBI. There is nothing wrong with them get your fingers out. What they really needed to do on the manufacturing side was far more exports. That is not an easy thing to do and needs money to grow and a firm home market. I have seen production line workers in several countries. I can't say I have noticed any difference.